The author of the original article was making the point, and it’s a point I am making, that one can view the Bible as God’s inspired word and believe people in committed homosexual relationships are not going against God’s intentions, since there is nothing in the Bible which unambiguously says they are.
Well, and my point is (to repeat) that (a) I disagree that the matter is unambiguous in the Bible, (b) for the large majority of Christians, a “Bible-only” belief is heretical, and therefore (c ) you’re taking a position which is outside of 2 millenia hristian tradition.
But hey, look, you’re free to believe what you like.
The point of Christianity is not to follow a set of religious mores blindly because they are “God’s law”; the point of Christianity is to “Love the Lord your God” and to “Love your neighbor as yourself”. Everything else in Christian practice stems from these two precepts (give to the poor, not lusting women because one can’t love someone he lusts, etc.)
Sure. But believing (and following) those two precepts does not preclude one from believing that homosexual sex is sinful. Christians are exhorted to love the sinner, after all.
So, yes, the Bible does say Women shouldn’t teach over men, but my church allows women ministers because the rule of universal love trumps that.
Yea……so you believe that the “rule of universal love” turns the Bible into kind of a Chinese Buffet? You can pick out what you want to eat and pass on what you don’t?
I’m not a Christian anymore, but I find that view risky at best. You’re making people into their own Popes, as it were. Can’t see that that ends well,
and, yes, we can say the early church fathers were wrong because we better understand universal love today than they did 1600 years ago.
Well, when you get to the Judgement……hope that works out for you.
And I mean that sincerely. I think it wiser for the Christian homosexual to face their sin straight on, look up to God in prayer and say “I’m sorry, I’m just not strong enough to control my desires, have mercy on me”, because homosexual relations cannot possibly be the “sin unto death” Paul refers to.
A couple of other thoughts:
- It;s my personal belief (no evidence for it one way or the other) that a nontrivial number of the Church Fathers you;re rejecting were gay men. Why? Because those societies were homophobic, and there’s no better place for a gay man in that society who has a modicum of religious belief than among the clergy, where they may work out their salvation without family harrassing them about why they’re not married.
- It seems worth mentioning that what YOU believe and what I believe, at the end of the day, are not relevant to what actually IS.
- (IOW, we can’t change God’s law just because we might believe it to be something other than what it is. That goes for both you and I. )